Climate change vs. God

Yesterday at work I overheard part of a consversation that hurt my brain.

Customer: It's so warm today!

Worker 1: Must be global warming.

Worker 2: Global warming isn't real.

Worker 1: Yes, it is. Go back to school.

Worker 2: Do you believe in God?

Worker 1: Yeah. Yeah.

Worker 2: [looks skeptical]

Worker 1: Yes, I do. Why would I lie about that?

To my great dismay, I missed the part where Worker 2 explains how his belief in God conteracts the Greenhouse Effect. It kind of shocked me that they would talk about something politicized, like climate change, at work. I was blown away when Worker 2 brought up God.

Has anyone else encountered this kind of God-trumps-climate-change thinking? What do you think the Climate Change Skeptic/Theist would have said next? For my edification and general amusement, please tell me, how does this work?

I agree with both GM and Greg with two g's. You are both right. I look around this redneck town and hear all about how bad they hate communist Chinese, where are our jobs, boo hoo? And every weekend (ok 24-7) they flock down to walmart and spend 90% of their cash. They don't care, it's cheap, just like oil.

THAT is why we need Government. Business will do the wrong thing, it almost has to. Government is supposed to do the right things. There lies the rub.

Then there is the Bull in the China Shop that you have to deal with Transportation.

As your own charts point out, cars, trucks, buses, trains are for the most part run on Hydrocarbon Fuels. Replacing these millions of vehicles with electric will most likely run into the hundreds of Billions if not Trillions. In addition there will be an immediate need for a few more Trillions of Kw hours in electrical power production ie. more fusion plants (ie. lots more investment dollars).

Then there is the Bull in the China Shop that you have to deal with Transportation.

As your own charts point out, cars, trucks, buses, trains are for the most part run on Hydrocarbon Fuels. Replacing these millions of vehicles with electric will most likely run into the hundreds of Billions if not Trillions. In addition there will be an immediate need for a few more Trillions of Kw hours in electrical power production ie. more fusion plants (ie. lots more investment dollars).

It is more than the bull in the china shop, it's the elephant in the room.

Unfortunately no current existing battery technology can possibly replace gasoline for anything but short trips... and you'd better live in a warm climate, too, as batteries don't like the cold (there is a reason GM tested their EV car in LA and Phoenix). Also, making batteries is very much a chemical industry with all the attendant pollution it entails. And it depends on rare minerals. Most lithium comes from Bolivia, for example. And notice the price of the cars... and the word is not in on how often you will end up having to replace all the batteries (thousands of dollars all at once) because they are worn out from being cycled over and over.

Until batteries last longer, hold much more charge per unit weight, don't lose half their power just because it's cold, and recharge quickly, they will only be useful in certain niches.

But here is an idea that is somewhat interesting. What if fusion power were used to take CO2 out of the air, combine it with water, and produce.... gasoline! (Or methanol. Or propane.) This would take a LOT of energy to do, but we are assuming plentiful fusion power, right? Burning this gasoline would not increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere, because the carbon in the gasoline came from the atmosphere in the first place!

Of course there is one tiny problem with that--fusion power is probably even further off than a battery that doesn't suck. It's estimated that it's 30 years off. Well that has been the estimate since the 1970s! So I am afraid I won't believe it until ten years afterwards when they are calling for it to be around in only 20 more years.

Gallup's Mirror has called for a Manhattan project for Fusion power. I would maintain that we already have one. The Manhattan Project cost about 2 billion dollars, that's 26 billion in today's dollars. The total amount of money spent on fusion research over the last 57 years of it being only 30 years away, is 29 billion (or more: http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/reframe/373 these folks seem uncertain about their inflation adjustment, but they are sure they want to see more money spent). We have already spent more on fusion research than was spent on the Manhattan Project, and it is STILL 30 years away.

It's still worth pursuing both better batteries and fusion power... but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.for either of them.

On the other hand, there is always the chance of an unexpected breakthrough in one or both of these categories. No, I don't know what it would be--it would be unexpected after all. The one thing I do know is that doing no research at all would be the wrong thing to do.

-Alligators working their way up the Mississippi. Hey, lets check out Cleveland!

-Banana plantations in Iowa. Hey mista tally mon banana, beauty aye?

-The birds will fly North of the North, for the summer

-Hurricanes in NY (oh yeah, we already have that)

All Y'all Yankees are gonna have to get a drawl and drink sun tea. You like yer trees full o moss. Oh and mango trees make a real mess...You'll are gonna have to slow down. It's too damm hot foe all that running around. And you put put lime on your beer to shoo flies, not because it tastes good!